This is why gun control is so important

[Dex]

Going on 7 years for a mission which was supposed to last only 6 months.

It was never only supposed to last 6 months. The UN approved it initially for 6 months, to be reviewed and renewed later.

Or do you think that because you get a prescription renewed at the pharmacy that the doctor was bullshitting you about your recovery time? It's not like this was never done before. Cyprus was initially approved in 64, for 3 months. Anyone who thought Afghanistan would last 6 is an idiot and completely ignorant of history.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION ... 021144.pdf
?OpenElement

The original, 'stated', mission was only to last six months or very soon thereafter. I read documents on the US Congress website with hearings discussing this issue, back in December 2001. The Pentagon was confident this could be done quickly.
Regardless, after 7 years the Afghanistan mission is a tragedy and a failure.

The "prescription" parallelism is silly. Doctors set limits on prescriptions to protect the patient.

Do you have the UN documents (UN link) on hand which express the point in your first paragraph? Not denying they exist, just for convenience if you have them handy.

[CID]

I would compare the gun registry to christianity. It was a good idea in the beginning....good intentions gone wrong. $1 Billion so people can register their glue guns????

Wow. What a wildly insane statement. If we're going to use comparisons, let's compare apples with apples. Let's compare it to registering cars. Cars are often used in crimes. Drivers sometimes break other laws involving speed and imprudent driving and even theft of the car.

Would it be better to have no licence plates so that police would have to pull over every car to find such cars?

Do licence plates completely deter car theives? Do they prevent people from driving drunk? Has speeding been eradcated? Of course not. It's not a "magic bullet". It's the right thing to do.

[Rockie]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that any rise or drop in gun crime cannot be attributed to the existence or not of gun control. If a crime does not get committed because in the heat of passion there wasn't a handy .357 hidden under the sofa pillow how can that then become part of a statistic? It didn't happen. Similarly a gun crime occurring in the absense of gun control can't necessarily be blamed on that lack because the gun might have been there regardless. These are long term societal and cultural attitudes that can't readily be pinned to legislation or quantified by statistics.

So you would have to agree then that establishing a gun registry is pointless as there is no way of knowing whether it is or is not working.

Absolutely not. Do you always need positive statistical proof that something works for it to make sense? And as CID says how do you definitively determine if a measure is a success or not? Even if you had all the information and completely true and accurate stats (which can never happen) your dividing line and mine would naturally be different. Society would be a complete disaster if we governed like.

[grimey]

The original, 'stated', mission was only to last six months or very soon thereafter. I read documents on the US Congress website with hearings discussing this issue, back in December 2001. The Pentagon was confident this could be done quickly.
Regardless, after 7 years the Afghanistan mission is a tragedy and a failure.

The "prescription" parallelism is silly. Doctors set limits on prescriptions to protect the patient.

Do you have the UN documents (UN link) on hand which express the point in your first paragraph? Not denying they exist, just for convenience if you have them handy.

How it it a tragedy and a failure, Dex? Because we're still there? We were attacked by a terrorist group supported by the government in place there. We removed their ability to plan and train without interference. We've lost 80-90 soldiers, all of whom volunteered for this duty, over 7 years for that effect.

EVERY UN peacekeeping mission gets approved on a short term basis, on the understanding that it will could take longer. The only people who believed it would only last 6 are people who have completely ignored how the UN has operated for the last 60 years.

(UNSC resolutions accessed from http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm and http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Ge ... Area=UNDOC

UNSC resolution 1386 (2001):

1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the
establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist
the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its
surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of
the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

...

11. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

"Decides to remain actively seized of the matter" is UN speak for "we don't consider this matter to be settled".

UNSC resolution 1401 (2002):

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Ge ... Area=UNDOC

1. Endorses the establishment, for an initial period of 12 months from the
date of adoption of this resolution, of a United Nations Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan (UNAMA), with the mandate and structure laid out in the report of the
Secretary-General of 18 March 2002 (S/2002/278);
2. Reaffirms its strong support for the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General and endorses his full authority, in accordance with its relevant
resolutions, over the planning and conduct of all United Nations activities in
Afghanistan;
3. Stresses that the provision of focussed recovery and reconstruction
assistance can greatly assist in the implementation of the Bonn Agreement and, to
this end, urges bilateral and multilateral donors, in particular through the
Afghanistan Support Group and the Implementation Group, to coordinate very
closely with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, the Afghan Interim
Administration and its successors;
4. Stresses also, in the context of paragraph 3 above, that while
humanitarian assistance should be provided wherever there is a need, recovery or
reconstruction assistance ought to be provided, through the Afghan Interim
Administration and its successors, and implemented effectively, where local
authorities contribute to the maintenance of a secure environment and demonstrate
respect for human rights;
5. Calls upon all Afghan parties to cooperate with UNAMA in the
implementation of its mandate and to ensure the security and freedom of movement
of its staff throughout the country;
6. Requests the International Security Assistance Force, in implementing its
mandate in accordance with resolution 1386 (2001), to continue to work in close
consultation with the Secretary-General and his Special Representative;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every four
months on the implementation of this resolution;
8. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

So it follows that ISAF, which was put in place in part to protect UN personel and the Afghan people, could reasonably be expected to be extended as long as UNAMA is active.

From the Bonn Agreement:

http://www.afghangovernment.com/AfghanAgreementBonn.htm

ANNEX I

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORCE


1. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan recognize that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves. To this end, they pledge their commitment to do all within their means and influence to ensure such security, including for all United Nations and other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan.

2. With this objective in mind, the participants request the assistance of the international community in helping the new Afghan authorities in the establishment and training of new Afghan security and armed forces.

3. Conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning, the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan request the United Nations Security Council to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations mandated force. This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.

4. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan pledge to withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centers or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed. It would also be desirable if such a force were to assist in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

The Bonn Agreement, which actually requested the ISAF mission, placed absolutely no limit on it duration. The UN limits its approval periods to allow missions to be approved in the first place. It's how the UN has always (not) worked.

Please provide transcripts from congress saying the mission (not just initial combat and toppling the Taliban government) would take only 6 months.

[grimey]

And just to further my point, Dex, ISAF is currently only authorized by the UN until 13 October, 2008. Why are we having debates in parliament about whether we should withdraw by 2009 or not? Because the authorization is expected to be renewed, just as it was expected to be renewed in 2002.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions07.htm

From UNSC resolution 1776 (2007):

1. Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security
Assistance Force, as defined in resolutions 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a
period of twelve months beyond 13 October 2007;

[Topspin]

I would compare the gun registry to christianity. It was a good idea in the beginning....good intentions gone wrong. $1 Billion so people can register their glue guns????

Wow. What a wildly insane statement. If we're going to use comparisons, let's compare apples with apples. Let's compare it to registering cars. Cars are often used in crimes. Drivers sometimes break other laws involving speed and imprudent driving and even theft of the car.

Would it be better to have no licence plates so that police would have to pull over every car to find such cars?

Do licence plates completely deter car theives? Do they prevent people from driving drunk? Has speeding been eradcated? Of course not. It's not a "magic bullet". It's the right thing to do.

Wow what a wildly insane interpretation. Do people need car insurance & license plates, of course they do. Is there any justification of a gun registry that was supposed to cost $130 million in intial fees and then cover itself based on revenues. Yes. Is there any justification of a supposed $130 million dollar project costing over a billion dollars with the cost's still climbing...of course not.

As I said.

It was a good idea in the beginning....good intentions gone wrong.

[Dex]

Grimey:

"Decides to remain actively seized of the matter" is UN speak for "we don't consider this matter to be settled".

No it doesn't. The Security Council uses this phrase for political reasons. Primarily to keep the General Assembly from exercising any control in the matter before the SC resolution. You can confirm this with a quick Google search.

UNSC resolution 1386 (2001) does not in any way suggest the ISAF force would last any longer than 6 months; as per your intial thesis. Do you have handy any other documents?

"1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the
establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment"


Even if I accepted your point about UN authorization renewal, I would have to question why the UNSC would initially only authorize the ISAF for six months if they believed the mission would take years. And subsequent resolutions have changed to annual ISAF authorizations. This only reflects the failure of the ISAF. A fucking tragedy!!!

I looked for the Congress documents I read in December 2001 but could not find them. I only spent about ten minutes, but will look further and link them here when I find them.


edit: to erase a mistake in saying there were multi-year authorizations.

[LH]

1) Gun control and registration are meant and have always been meant for those members of the public who respect or fear the laws of the land. If one does not have that respect and/or fear of the laws of the land, then they mean nothing more than the laws that exist concerning same in Nepal.
If one doesn't have that repect or fear and wishes to have a weapon of whatever type, they may look south over the border, but that poses all kinds of potential difficulties, so one can cast their gaze internally within Canada. It's not necessary either to break into stores of any kind or do the same to the houses of legal gun owners. There are tons of weapons of hundreds of different types that ar transported through Canada to other international countries each and everyday and this has been taking place daily for the last 50+ yearss. These containers/trailers sit on docks and in dockside warehouses in Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax and remain there, sometimes for weeks. Firearms of all types and shoulder-held missile launchers are candidates for theft and it happens with regularity. So 'Man' the border crossings with the US and make all the laws one considers necessary to stop this population of firearms and the only effect will be on the law abiding gun owner or potential gun owner. In fact, even ban firearms of all types from the countryside and you still will not have stopped the problem tht concerns all well-meaning people......the criminal use of and the inappropriate use of firearms of all types.

2) Oh.....and there's nothing wrong with Christianity. Don't be blaming God for the actions or inactions of a number of his "Ministers' throughout history.

3) Whenever the subject of Afghanistan is brought up it is not very l;ong before the numbers of Canadians that have been killed there over the years is mentioned as a reason to pull-out and come home. Excuse me? IF thatis going to be the reason to bring the CAF home, then I suggest that they also pull the CAF out of Manitoba, Alberta and BC. As of today's date there have been more people murdered in the Cities of Winnipeg and Edmonton over the last year than there have been CAF members KIA'd in Afghanistan over the last 3 years. Ergo, the CAF is safer in Kandahar than they would be in Winnipeg or Edmonton.So much for stats and safety that all like to quote all the time. That works both ways folks.

[grimey]

Dex, look at all the other peacekeeping missions with the UN. The majority of them were extended repeatedly after a short initial authorization. Like I said, if you honestly believed that the mission was only supposed to last 6 months based on the initial authorization, you are completely ignorant of history, and the way the UN works. Look as UNSC resolution 186. The Cyprus mission was originally authorized in 1964 for 3 months, with no language saying it would be extended. It is STILL in operation. That is how the UN works. It is how it has worked since it's inception. It is how it planned to work in Afghanistan with NATO in 2001, and how it is still working today.

Please explain why resolution 1776 only authorizes the ISAF mission til mid October 2008, if countries are currently arguing over whether to extend beyond 2009?

The initial authorization was never meant as "we'll end the mission after this". There is no language to that effect in the resolution, no language to that effect in the Bonn agreement, and no precedent for that in the history of the UN.

[grimey]

Also, if the mission were only to last 6 months, Layton and Duceppe would be having a field day with that little fact during question period. They aren't, because they recognize that that was not the case.

[Dex]

Dex, look at all the other peacekeeping missions with the UN. The majority of them were extended repeatedly after a short initial authorization. Like I said, if you honestly believed that the mission was only supposed to last 6 months based on the initial authorization, you are completely ignorant of history, and the way the UN works. Look as UNSC resolution 186. The Cyprus mission was originally authorized in 1964 for 3 months, with no language saying it would be extended. It is STILL in operation. That is how the UN works. It is how it has worked since it's inception. It is how it planned to work in Afghanistan with NATO in 2001, and how it is still working today.
.............
The initial authorization was never meant as "we'll end the mission after this". There is no language to that effect in the resolution, no language to that effect in the Bonn agreement, and no precedent for that in the history of the UN.

Look at the Bosnia War. UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) had no time limit on authorization; See Security Council Resolution 743 February 1992.
When IFOR was authorized to take over UNPROFOR's mandate, it was given a one year authorization with an option of renewing after review; See UN Security Council Resolution 1031 December 1995.

I suppose these two authorizations must be the exception to the rule? I could, no doubt, find more.

Still haven't found that document on congress site, haven't really looked, but the jist of it was that it was believed the Security Force would only be needed until the Afghanistan interim government could produce a Police/Army force of its own. It was thought this would only take 6 months or a little longer. The UN would still be active in Afghanistan but the Afghani people would be responsible for their own security. This was stated in SC resolution 1413 may 2002:
"Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves,....."
Incidentally, this was the same SC resolution which renewed the first 6 month Security Force term with another 6 month term.

It doesn't take 7 years to build an Army and Police force from people we liberated!!!! Should take less than a year. Things are FUBAR over there!!!

Please explain why resolution 1776 only authorizes the ISAF mission til mid October 2008, if countries are currently arguing over whether to extend beyond 2009?

Because it is up to the sovereign nations to decide how much and how long they are willing to invest their assets to the mission. It is up to the United Nations to authorize the mission and for how long.


LH: read #3 in your post again and tell me if you still stand by that logic/reasoning. If you still do may I suggest you get off the bottle.

3) Whenever the subject of Afghanistan is brought up it is not very l;ong before the numbers of Canadians that have been killed there over the years is mentioned as a reason to pull-out and come home. Excuse me? IF thatis going to be the reason to bring the CAF home, then I suggest that they also pull the CAF out of Manitoba, Alberta and BC. As of today's date there have been more people murdered in the Cities of Winnipeg and Edmonton over the last year than there have been CAF members KIA'd in Afghanistan over the last 3 years. Ergo, the CAF is safer in Kandahar than they would be in Winnipeg or Edmonton.So much for stats and safety that all like to quote all the time. That works both ways folks.

[C23flyer]

Well, at least we're exercising our freedom to argue about the kids, while they're over there getting shot at. Hope they get home soon...

[LH]

Dex -----apparently you have a problem with the understanding of English. May I help you a bit. I produced some stats about murders in two Canadian cities over a one year period versus those CAF lives lost in Afghanistan over three years. It was used to demonstrate that stats can be used for anything.....pro or con one's position.

It's firmly understood by me and those like me that there are many Canadians who do not support in any way our being in Afghanistan. That's a fair position and attitude, but don't be blaming the USA for that because it's not backed-up by the facts that were pulished in newspapers in Canada at the time and on TV for all Canadians to witness if they so cared to do so. For some reason, some Canadians believe that we can't have an original idea of any type and even need the USA to wipe our asses, so when our own government won't give them the answers they want, they immediately look southward for answers. We entered Afghanistan for our own reasons and it wasn't today's ruling Party that did so either. As in all other occasions 'military', nobody asks or pays any attention to the opinions of those who have served our military in Afghanistan. It would be nice if they did because not all of them are for our being there either, but the majority are and since it is they putting their lives "in harm's way", perhaps the rest of us should shut up and pay attention. Lots of people with absolutely no military background whatsoever have lots to say about something in which they have no experience whatsoever, but that's normal also I suppose. I suffered from the same 'experts' when I served and learned to pay them no attention. Every once in a while though somebody would walk up to me, grab and squeeze my arm and say something short like "God Bless you son" and just keep on walking by. Those moments were special.

[CID]

Police: 5-year-old who fatally shot sister had played with gun before

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 6/80509003

Grief stricken fathers says "I've always been really safe with my guns."

Apparently guns don't kill people. Five year olds do.

[grimey]

Less than a year Dex? In a country with essentially no currently viable exports other than opium? What are you basing that on?

[Dex]

In 2001 and 2002 the unemployment rate in Afghanistan was over 50%. Shouldn't have been hard to find employees for security from the over 15 million liberated people unemployed. In 2005 the unemployment rate was 40%
Less than a third of Afghanistan's GDP in 2007 was opium related. Around 3.3 million of Afghanistan's 31 million population is involved in opium production. This of course is a huge increase in opium production from 2001.

[grimey]

When the government can pay you $100 a month, and a warlord growing opium can pay you $1000, where do you think all the guys who can use guns will go? If the unemployment rate is %50, then the economy is a shambles, and the government can't afford to maintain a large army or police force, or pay them well. The Taliban cut back on opium production, and their solution to keep the economy going was to lay waste to the land, and sell all the timber for Pakistan. They did the same with alot of factories and infrastructure, selling metal to Pakistan as scrap. So how are you going to get enough money to maintain a police force and army, when you have a shit economy, and anyone who wants to serve as a soldier can make alot more serving as a hired gun for a warlord?

[rigpiggy]

Police: 5-year-old who fatally shot sister had played with gun before

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 6/80509003

Grief stricken fathers says "I've always been really safe with my guns."

Apparently guns don't kill people. Five year olds do.

My 5 year old knows

Me "what do you do if you see a gun or your friend has one"

my Kids "9,7,5 Stop, don't touch get an adult"

if they can figure it out how come some adults can't

"In a country with essentially no currently viable exports other than opium?"

explain to me why you can't wash your car in Australia, but they divert millions of gallons of water to poppy fields for medical opium/morphine. Because the Afghans don't suck GWB's Ass, and John Howard did.

[grimey]

"In a country with essentially no currently viable exports other than opium?"

explain to me why you can't wash your car in Australia, but they divert millions of gallons of water to poppy fields for medical opium/morphine. Because the Afghans don't suck GWB's Ass, and John Howard did.

How much of Australia's opium crop ends up on the black market? How much of Afghanistan's doesn't?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5684

Firstly, the medical opium 'shortage' is an illusory one. Licit opium production currently takes place primarily in Tasmania, Turkey, and India, strictly licensed by the UN drug agencies. The problem is evidently not a lack of opium but rather the under use of current production. The INCB estimated annual global demand for licit opiates (in morphine equivalents) was 400 metric tonnes and that over production since 2000 has led to stocks 'that could cover global demand for two years'. Afghanistan's annual production is 610 tonnes of morphine equivalent (and rising). Flooding an already over-saturated market would potentially cause precisely the supply/demand imbalance the UN control system was designed to prevent. Any first steps would, therefore, have to address under-usage of existing production and the related political, bureaucratic, and licensing issues before any realistic role for licit Afghan production could seriously be entertained.